A Reexamination of the Canon of Objectivity in American Journalism Les L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Louisiana State University Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2001 A reexamination of the canon of objectivity in American journalism Les L. Lane Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation Lane, Les L., "A reexamination of the canon of objectivity in American journalism" (2001). LSU Master's Theses. 3167. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3167 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A REEXAMINATION OF THE CANON OF OBJECTIVITY IN AMERICAN JOURNALISM A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Mass Communication in The Manship School of Mass Communication by Les L. Lane B.S., University of Idaho, 1975 December 2001 Copyright 2001 Leslie Leonard Lane All rights reserved ii To Dr. Louis A. Day and To My Family iii TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT . ii DEDICATION . iii ABSTRACT . v CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study . 1 Statement of the Problem . 2 Research Questions . 5 2. METHODOLOGY . 7 3. OUTLINE OF THE THESIS . 13 4. LITERATURE REVIEW . 16 Rejection . .. .. 16 Reconstruction . 20 Recipes . 21 Slogans . 23 5. THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF OBJECTIVITY Colonial America . 26 Revolutionary War . .. 27 “Dark Ages of Partisan Journalism”. 28 Nonpartisanship . … . … . 28 Neutrality . … . 33 Focus-On-Facts . 39 Detachment . .. 46 Get-Both(All)-Sides . .. 53 6. APPLYING CONTEXTUAL INDEPENDENCE TO TODAY’S JOURNALISM . .. 62 7. THE FOUR QUADRANTS . 67 Nonpartisanship . 68 Neutrality . .. 69 Focus-On-Facts . 70 Detachment . 71 8. SUMMARY . 74 REFERENCES . .. 81 VITA . 93 iv ABSTRACT Journalistic objectivity is the definitive canon of American mainstream journalism. Yet American journalists cannot agree on what it is, how it is measured, or on how it is done. The source of the confusion is the assumption that objectivity is an ideal, absolute, impossible, incomprehensible, value-free state of being, outside of all physical, cognitive, psychological, and social contexts, where reality is perceived without distortions of any kind. This assumption is logically invalid and historically inaccurate. Journalistic objectivity evolved from the American cultural premises of egalitarianism and positive scientific empiricism through four historical stages: Nonpartisanship, Neutrality, Focus-On-Facts, and Detachment. It is possible, comprehensible, and reflects specific values. Within the context of journalism, there is no absolute truth. A “truth” is an interpretation of reality that passes three tests—coherence, correspondence and pragmatism--within a specific context. There are as many potential “truths” as there are contexts from which to determine those truths. With so many potential truths, chaos is unavoidable unless an added dimension of truth is identified. That added dimension is “objectivity.” “Objective” truths are interpretations of reality that pass the three tests of truth within the largest, most information-rich contexts. An “objective” journalist is one who gathers interpretations of reality (true or not) from the smaller contexts of news participants, and presents them faithfully and accurately to the larger context of news consumers, so that the most objective truth (the one that everyone in the large context can agree on) can be determined. In order to do this, an objective journalist has to be able to surf contexts. Therefore, “journalistic objectivity” is the ability to surf contexts, or Contextual Independence. v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study Objectivity is widely recognized as American journalism's greatest value. Yet American journalists disagree on what it is (a definition), how to measure it (a standard), and how to do it (a technique). Definitions, standards and techniques currently intertwine in a Gordian Knot of confusion and disagreement almost impossible to unravel. There has, in fact, been so much confusion and disagreement over the meaning of the term "journalistic objectivity" during the last 50 years, that it has become fashionable to declare objectivity an illusion. The following caveat from a 1988 book on journalistic ethics is typical of this continually growing attitude about objectivity: "This chapter was written with the following conviction: No matter how close journalists approach objectivity, objectivity is an illusion. (Rivers and Mathews, 64)” But, also typical of this attitude is an exhortation from various commentators to journalists, as exemplified in the remarks below, to try for objectivity anyway: We use "objectivity" frequently in this chapter, and, like other thoughtful journalists, we do not believe in objectivity. We know only that the better journalists can approach objectivity. (Rivers and Mathews 1988, 65) To achieve complete objectivity when you are evaluating your research is obviously impossible . Yet while the ideal is impossible of achievement, we are all obliged to come as close to it as we possibly can. (Fontaine and Glavin 1987, 59) Complete objectivity, like flawless accuracy, is an impossible ideal that journalists must pursue tirelessly. (Rivers and Work 1988, 23) Such a state of absolute impartiality, which might be termed "'Objectivity' with an upper-case 'O,'" is seldom to be found in journalism . For the working journalist, this more feasible goal could be called "'objectivity' with a lower case 'o.'" It's the objectivity of journalists who want to tell the truth as best they can ascertain it, without bias or prejudice, while understanding that they can but approximate the ideal of absolute impartiality. (Porter and Ferris 1988, 341) 1 This attitude about objectivity–that it is impossible, but journalists should try to achieve it anyway--is counter-productive. American journalists are not known for their pursuit of intangibles. How long will they continue to try to do something that is impossible to do? And yet, “journalism,” as a distinctive literary genre, does not exist without objectivity. This thesis defines journalism as “an objective account of current events.” Objectivity, currency, and the focus on events, are journalism’s key ingredients. Take away any of them, and “journalism,” as a distinctive genre, disappears. Substitute a focus on ideas for the journalistic focus on events, and you get academia. Substitute the past for the present and you get history. Substitute advocacy for objectivity, and the result is propaganda. If “objectivity” is an illusion, so is “journalism.” Under these circumstances, a theoretically possible and comprehensible conception of objectivity isn’t just a convenience, it is an absolute necessity. The purpose of this study is to develop such a conception of objectivity. Through an historical and philosophical analysis of the premises of the concept--the philosophical ideas that underlie and generate the notion of journalistic objectivity--this study will identify and eliminate the source of most of the current confusion, and produce the simple, clear definition, the measurable standard, and the compatible technique, that the concept is lacking now. Statement of the Problem Currently, American “objective” journalism strives, above all, to catch reality “as it really is”– without distortions of any kind. According to the current ideal of absolute journalistic objectivity, if a journalist could just step outside of his physical/cognitive/psychological/social frame of reference, he could achieve undistorted perception of absolute reality. This will never happen of course, and no one believes that it is even possible, but objective journalists are expected to continue trying to be absolutely objective for as long as they practice their craft. 2 This unrealistic expectation ignores the obvious. Since no one has ever experienced absolute journalistic objectivity, and no one ever will, absolute journalistic objectivity can never be sufficiently defined, described or measured. The best anyone can do is make an educated guess. The result of 50 years of educated guesses is the tangled mass of conflicting definitions, standards and techniques that this thesis will attempt to put in order. The endless, hopeless pursuit of an ideal that can never be understood or realized has generated at least four counter-productive responses. The first two attack the ideal: (1) Some journalists have rejected even the possibility of objectivity; (2) Others have tried to reconstruct and re-define “objectivity.” The second two defend the ideal: (3) Journalists have concocted "recipes" for objectivity; (4) Journalists have boiled objectivity down to a set of mindless slogans. The Four Responses Rejection Some journalists have attacked the ideal by rejecting the idea of journalistic objectivity altogether. To them, it is a false idol, the "worship" of which does more harm than it does good. Gaye Tuchman and J. Herbert Altschull are two notable examples of this response, and their discussions about objectivity, Tuchman's especially, have deeply influenced two